Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy

Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy R. Anton Braun 1 Tomoyuki Nakajima 2 1 Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 2 Kyoto University Canon Institute for Global Studies June 1, 2016 These are our personal views and not those of the Federal Reserve System. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 1 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan 1 Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan 2 Motivation for my research project with Nakajima 3 Our model 4 Our results 5 Concluding Remarks Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 2 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Motivation: some facts about stagnation: GDP Japan is in the midst of a protracted episode of depressed economic activity Per Capita GDP is depressed relative to Japan s peers. 2000=100 130 125 120 115 110 105 U.S. 100 U.K. Japan 95 Euro area Germany 90 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 *Thanks to Masaaki Shirakawa. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 3 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Growth remains well below the targets set in the 2012 consumption tax legislation: 3% for nominal GDP, 2% for real GDP and 1% for the GDP deflator on average over 2013-22 (Table 2). These targets, which were adopted by the government and the Bank of Japan in a January 2013 agreement, require reversing the downward trend in nominal GDP and the GDP deflator over 1997-2012. Potential Table 2. Japan's macroeconomic GDP targets 1 Target (%) Average over 1997:Q2 to 2012:Q2 Source: OECD Economic Outlook Database. Labor productivity growth is low but has been gradually increasing since 2010. Structural reforms to boost growth: The Japan Revitalisation Strategy (the third arrow) Japan is loosing 1Reversing million the fallworkers in Japan s potentiala growth yearate, due which slowed to retirement. from over 3% in the Required increase 2 Average over 2012:Q3 to 2014:Q3 Additional increase required 2 Nominal GDP 3-0.6 3.6 1.4 1.6 Real GDP 2 0.6 1.4 0.5 1.5 GDP deflator 1-1.3 2.3 0.8 0.2 1. Included in the August 2012 consumption tax legislation and adopted by the Abe Administration. 2. Increase (in percentage points) in the annualised growth rate needed to meet the target. early 1990s to around ¾ per cent in 2014 (Figure 4) requires additional steps to: i) slow the Figure 4. Japan s potential GDP growth rate has fallen sharply since 1990 Per cent 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Potential employment Trend labour productivity Potential real GDP Japan s growth target¹ Average real GDP growth (1990-2014)² Per cent 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0-0.5-0.5 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 1. The 2% target was set in 2009 and maintained by subsequent governments. 2. Average annual GDP growth in real terms in Japan between 1990 and 2014. Source: OECD Economic Outlook Database. *OECD Japan Survey 2015. 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933201756 OECD ECONOMIC SURVEYS: JAPAN OECD 2015 19 Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 4 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan ESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Nominal wages are flat. Average Wages quarter due to a large negative contribution from stockbuilding and weak domestic demand, Real plunging wages Japan into are its fourth falling. technical recession since 2008 and delaying the planned second hike in the consumption tax to 10% until 2017. Recent gains in labor productivity have not been passed through to real The 2014 downturn reflects, in part, the weak rebound in private consumption (Figure 2) as real wages fell (Panel B). While nominal wage growth turned positive in late wages. Figure 2. Key macroeconomic indicators show a mixed picture A. Consumption and industrial production have been weak lume indices 2012=100¹ 108 125 Private consumption index (left scale) Total industrial production² (right scale) 120 106 115 104 110 102 105 100 100 95 98 90 96 85 94 80 B. Nominal wage increases have not kept pace with inflation³ Year-on-year % changes¹ 3 3 2 1 0-1 -2-3 -4-5 Nominal wages Real wages 2 1 0-1 -2-3 -4-5 92 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 C. Business confidence and profits are strong iffusion index (% pts) Index 2012Q4=100 30 4 Large enterprises confidence (left scale) 5 140 Current profit in corporate sector (right scale) 20 75-6 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 150 140 D. Exports are rebounding 6 *OECD Japan Survey 2015. -6 Index 2012:Q4 = 100 150 Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 5 / 44 140

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Income Inequality in Japan Income equality is increasing. Share of total income by those in high income groups has risen between 1999 and 2011. N Oka / Public Policy Review Naoki Oka: Public Policy Review Vol. 10 No. 3 October 2014. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 6 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Income Inequality in Japan Fraction of taxpayers in low income groups increased between 1999 and 2011. Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance, Japan, Public Policy Review, Vol.10, No.3, October 2014 Naoki Oka: Public Policy Review Vol. 10 No. 3 October 2014. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 7 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan 4 (4) Declining Middle Class Growing number of households with an annual income below fiv Declining Middle Class The percentage of households with an annual income over five million yen has dropped. The distribution of household annual income has shifted to lower income groups below the five million yen mark. Disposable income (median) per person has fallen since the 2000s, with the real value in 2012 at 2.21 million yen, equal to lev Middle class income levels are decreasing, raising the risk of slipping into poverty. [ Distribution of household annual income ] [ Median disposable income pe (%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Below 1 million yen 1-2 million yen 2-3 million yen 3-4 million yen 5million yen 4-5 million yen 5-6 million yen 6-7 million yen 7-8 million yen 8-9 million yen 9-10 million yen Household annual income 10-11 million yen 11-12 million yen 12-15 million yen 2012 2000 1994 15-20 million yen Above 20 million yen Note: The average annual income was the highest in 1994. Source: Made by MHRI based upon Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions (1994, 2000, and 2012) (1,000 yen) N R F Note: The graph shows changes in the equivalent disposable income (dispos household size). The real value is adjusted based on the consumer pri (aggregate index except the imputed rent of owner-occupied housing f Source: Made by MHRI based upon Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, C Conditions (2013) *Mizuho Research Institute: Japan s Inequality Today and Policy Issues (2015) Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 8 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan.3 Polarization in Japan Wages of high earners (90 percentile) is increasing relative to median (50 1995 2000 2005 2010 percentile) Year wages..25 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Wages (p50/p10) All Men Women 2.4 Wages (p90/p50) All Men Women 2.2 2 1.8 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year 1.6 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Lise et al. (2013). Figure 5: Wage inequality for men and women (BSWS) Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 9 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Variance of earnings is increasing. 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year.1 Polarization in Japan Men Women Men Women 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year relation btw log Hours and log Wages.6 Variance of log Earnings.4.2 Men Women Men Women 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Lise et al. (2013). : Inequality in labor supply and earnings of men and women (BSWS) Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 10 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Some factors underlying these changes Aging: Income drops as people move into retirement Earnings polarization Regular versus non-regular wages. Decline in lifetime employment guarantees. Decline in routine middle skilled jobs. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 11 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Aging is resulting in higher firm dissolutions [6] Business closure Let us examine developments in business closure in greater detail using a different set of data. Fig. 1-1-25 shows changes in the number of business shutdowns and closures and corporate dissolutions surveyed by private research institutions (Tokyo Shoko Research, Ltd.; Teikoku Databank, Ltd.) 10). From the figure, we can see that the numbers of business shutdowns, closures and dissolutions are showing an increasing trend from a longterm perspective according to both companies, and are trending at twice the level of bankruptcies in recent years. Fig. 1-1-25 Numbers of business shutdowns, closures and dissolutions, and bankruptcies (cases) 35,000 Number of suspended and dissolved businesses (A study by Tokyo Shoko Research, Ltd.) Number of bankruptcies (A study by Tokyo Shoko Research, Ltd.) Number of suspended and dissolved businesses (A study by Teikoku Databank, Ltd.) Number of bankruptcies (A study by Teikoku Databank, Ltd.) 30,000 25,000 23,999 24,984 27,361 24,968 25,53025,794 27,825 26,544 25,138 25,743 26,050 25,008 28,943 20,637 20,000 21,346 15,000 10,000 13,245 9,572 14,091 11,333 15,646 15,480 13,234 12,866 13,321 12,734 12,124 11,496 11,435 10,710 10,855 10,102 5,000 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 (year, FY) Source: Tokyo Shoko Research, Ltd., Teikoku Databank, Ltd. Note: The figures presented by Tokyo Shoko Research, Ltd. are based on year, and those presented by Teikoku Databank, Ltd. are based on fiscal year. *2014 White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises in Japan Under this situation, the number of suicides in Japan, which continued to surpass 30,000 since 1998, decreased by 2,793 people from the previous year to 27,858 in 2012, and fell below the 30,000 level for the first time in 15 years (Fig. 1-1-26). It continued to decline in 2013 and reached down to a provisional number of 27,276 as of December 31, 2013. Since the financial crisis that was triggered by the problem of non-performing loans in 1998, the number of suicides in Japan had fluctuated at high levels above 30,000, but has finally begun to show signs of decreasing. Higher firm dissolutions imply less job security. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 12 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Earnings gap between regular and non-regular 3 (2) Wage Inequality Wage gap in the working-age groups is hardly a There is a wide gap in wage distribution between full-time regular employees and full-time non-regular workers. has been a major factor in widening wage disparities in the working-age population since the late 1990s. workers The Gini coefficient of working-age household income does not indicate growing inequality since the beginning [ Income distribution of full-time regular employees and full-time non-regular workers ] [ Changes in income gaps i (Composition ratio: ) 30 Disparity in income distribution 25 Full-time regular employees Full-time non-regular workers 20 15 10 5 0 (Income) Above 15 million yen 12.5-14.99 million yen 10-12.49 million yen 9-9.99 million yen 8-8.99 million yen 7-7.99 million yen 6-6.99 million yen 5-5.99 million yen 4-4.99 million yen 3-3.99 million yen 2.5-2.99 million yen 2-2.49 million yen 1.5-1.99 million yen 1-1.49 million yen 0.5-0.99 million yen Below 0.5 million yen Note: Income shown here is annual income (including taxes) from regular work. Full-time work refers to Notes: 1. Changes in Gini coefficient: A coefficient close to 0 working over 35 hours in a week and over 200 days in a year. indicates a larger gap. Source: Made by MHRI based upon Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Basic Survey on 2. The coefficient is calculated by average household Employment Structure (2012) on average household income. Source: Made by MHRI based upon Ministry of Internal Affair Survey *Mizuho Research Institute: Japan s Inequality Today and Policy Issues (2015) Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 13 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Labor market polarization is also occurring in U.S. Wage Polarization 1980-2010, extends Autor and Dorn (2013) by decade Change in real log hourly wage 0.1.2.3 0 20 40 60 80 100 Skill percentile (1980 occupational mean wage) 1980 1990 1980 2010 1980 2000 Lee and Shin (2016). Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 14 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan U.S. Polarization is particularly pronounced in manufacturing Change in Manufacturing Employment 1980-2010 by decade by levels by sector Change in manufacturing employment.07.06.05.04.03.02.01 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Skill percentile (1980 occupational mean wage) 1980 1990 1980 2010 1980 2000 Lee and Shin (2016). Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 15 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Wealth Inequality in Japan Higher earnings inequality has been associated with an increase in wealth inequality. GINI Country Report Japan Figure 2.4: Gini coefficient for financial asset holdings 0,65 0,625 0,6 0,575 0,55 0,525 0,5 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 Source: Authors calculations using microdata of the NSFIE. Note: For the calculation, total household asset holdings is divided by the square root of the number of household members. Ohtake et al. (2013). Sudo, Suzuki, and Yamada (2012) also report the same trend. That is, inequality of financial wealth, like that of wage income, grew rapidly from 1984 to 1989, fell for a decade, and again grew moderately from 1994 until 2009. The increase in inequality was driven by high-wealth households, say the top 5%. The wealth inequality in Japan is small compared to that in the U.S., and is comparable to that in Canada. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 16 / 44

Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan Summary Secular stagnation: Japan s economy is depressed (per capita GDP is low relative Japan s peers.) This is occurring against a background of Earnings polarization (Lise, Sudo, Suzuki, Yamada and Yamada, 2014) that is concentrated in periods of recession (Furukawa and Toyoda, 2013). Earnings of higher skilled workers are increasing while earnings of middle-skilled workers are growing more slowly or even falling. Wealth inequality is rising (Ohtake et. al., 2013 and Lise et. al., 2014). These same patterns can be observed in other advanced economies too. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 17 / 44

Motivation for my research project with Nakajima 1 Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan 2 Motivation for my research project with Nakajima 3 Our model 4 Our results 5 Concluding Remarks Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 18 / 44

Motivation for my research project with Nakajima These observations are related. Autor (2010) argues that earnings polarization is due to a bias in technological change. Automation is destroying medium skilled routine occupations. International integration of labor markets is another contributing factor. Our first objective: show that automation and international integration act to: depress aggregate economic activity increase wealth inequality. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 19 / 44

Motivation for my research project with Nakajima Our second objective: consider how should fiscal policy respond. Three criteria: 1 Bring an end to stagnation by boosting output. 2 Reduce wealth inequality 3 Raise welfare. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 20 / 44

Motivation for my research project with Nakajima Conventional prescriptions for fiscal policy Premise of current policy in Japan is that stagnation can be reversed by: Easy monetary policy. Fiscal stimulus (higher deficit spending). Structural reforms. Piketty s recommendations for responding to wealth and earnings inequality: Increase the tax rate on capital. He is silent about the effects of his recommendation on aggregate economic activity. Piketty s recommendation is a bad policy in our model. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 21 / 44

Motivation for my research project with Nakajima How we make these points. Develop a model that relates stagnation and increasing wealth inequality to uninsured earnings risk. Show that the model can account for the observations from Japan. An increase in earnings risk for high skilled jobs lowers output and increases wealth inequality. Use the model to analyze alternative fiscal policies in terms of their ability to boost output, reduce wealth inequality, improve welfare. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 22 / 44

Our model 1 Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan 2 Motivation for my research project with Nakajima 3 Our model 4 Our results 5 Concluding Remarks Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 23 / 44

Our model An overview of our model: households Blanchard-Yaari perpetual youth model. New households are born at every moment of time and other households pass away. Life-expectancy is uncertain. Households are endowed with two types of labor 1 unskilled labor (non-accumulable) but safe. 2 human capital that can be augmented via investment but is risky. Households can save by accumulating physical capital or acquiring government debt. Both are risk free. Households value consumption but supply both types of labor inelastically. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 24 / 44

Our model Model overview: firms 1 Perfectly competitive firms use physical capital, skilled labor and unskilled labor to produce a single good with a constant returns to scale technology. 2 Output is used for consumption, investment in physical capital and investment in human capital. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 25 / 44

Our model Model overview: government and equilibrium Government Raises revenue using taxes in consumption, capital and wages. Uses proceeds to finance transfers (lumpsum) and government purchases. Government also issues debt. Equilibrium Closed economy: interest rate and wage rates are determined endogenously. Results based on a comparison across steady-states. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 26 / 44

Our model Solving the model. Our model has a rich set of implications but does not admit a closed form solution. We solve it on a computer instead. This requires us to specify the precise values for the model s parameters. We choose model parameters to capture Japan s situation. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 27 / 44

Our model Parameterization of the model Model period is one year. Individuals live on average 83.7 years. Cobb-Douglas production technology (capital share is 0.3, skilled labor share is 0.45, unskilled labor share is 0.25). Earnings risk in 1991: 0.246 log basis points. Overall tax rate on capital (τ r ): 0.63 (corporate and household). Overall labor tax rate (tau w ): 0.32. Consumption tax rate (τ c ): 0.08 Government purchases: 21% of GDP. Debt-GDP ratio (net) 1.5. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 28 / 44

Our results 1 Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan 2 Motivation for my research project with Nakajima 3 Our model 4 Our results 5 Concluding Remarks Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 29 / 44

Our results An increase in earnings inequality We estimate that the standard deviation of earnings has increased from 0.246 log basis points in 1991 to 0.3 in 2015. An increase of earnings inequality of this magnitude has the following effects: Output (Y ) declines by 2.5% Public transfers (τ) decline by 3.33% (Lower tax revenues). The standard deviation of log wealth (σ a) increases by 0.255. Household welfare falls. From this we see that an increase in earnings inequality reproduces the observations about stagnation and rising wealth inequality that we discussed in the introduction. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 30 / 44

Our results Assessing Piketty s proposal in our model Higher earnings inequality translates into higher wealth inequality. According to Piketty the way to deal with higher wealth inequality is to tax capital. High earnings inequality Piketty Proposal τ r 0.63 0.669 ln τ -0.0333 σ a 0.255 ln Y -0.0252 U -0.2398 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 31 / 44

Our results Assessing Piketty s proposal in our model Higher earnings inequality translates into higher wealth inequality. According to Piketty the way to deal with higher wealth inequality is to tax capital. We use the proceeds from this tax to increase transfers by 2% above their baseline value. High earnings inequality Piketty Proposal τ r 0.63 0.669 ln τ -0.0333 0.02 σ a 0.255 ln Y -0.0252 U -0.2398 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 32 / 44

Our results Assessing Piketty s proposal in our model Higher earnings inequality translates into higher wealth inequality. According to Piketty the way to deal with higher wealth inequality is to tax capital. We use the proceeds from this tax to increase transfers by 2%. Wealth inequality increases. High earnings inequality Piketty Proposal τ r 0.63 0.669 ln τ -0.0333 0.02 σ a 0.255 0.335 ln Y -0.0252 U -0.2398 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 33 / 44

Our results Assessing Piketty s proposal in our model Higher earnings inequality translates into higher wealth inequality. According to Piketty the way to deal with higher wealth inequality is to tax capital. We use the proceeds from this tax to increase transfers by 2%. Wealth inequality increases. Larger output declines High earnings inequality Piketty Proposal τ r 0.63 0.669 ln τ -0.0333 0.02 σ a 0.255 0.335 ln Y -0.0252-0.05 U -0.2398 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 34 / 44

Our results Assessing Piketty s proposal in our model Higher earnings inequality translates into higher wealth inequality. According to Piketty the way to deal with higher wealth inequality is to tax capital. Wealth inequality increases. Larger output declines. Households are worse off. High earnings inequality Piketty Proposal τ r 0.63 0.669 ln τ -0.0333 0.02 σ a 0.255 0.335 ln Y -0.0252-0.05 U -0.2398-0.2719 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 35 / 44

Our results How should fiscal policy respond? Lower the tax rate on capital instead! Let s now consider a reduction in the capital tax rate instead. Size of the reduction is chosen to restore output to its baseline level. High earnings inequality Lower τ r τ r 0.63 0.581 ln τ -0.0333 σ a 0.255 ln Y -0.0252 0.00 U -0.2398 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 36 / 44

Our results How should fiscal policy respond? Lower the tax rate on capital instead! Let s now consider a reduction in the capital tax rate instead. Size of the reduction is chosen to restore output to its baseline level. Public transfers to the poor fall by more. But wealth inequality improves. High earnings inequality Lower τ r τ r 0.63 0.581 ln τ -0.0333-0.0945 σ a 0.255 0.171 ln Y -0.0252 0.00 U -0.2398 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 37 / 44

Our results How should fiscal policy respond? Lower the tax rate on capital instead! Let s now consider a reduction in the capital tax rate instead. Size of the reduction is chosen to restore output to its baseline level. Lower public transfers to the poor and yet lower wealth inequality. Households welfare improves. High earnings inequality Lower τ r τ r 0.63 0.581 ln τ -0.0333-0.0945 σ a 0.255 0.171 ln Y -0.0252 0.00 U -0.2398-0.2149 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 38 / 44

Our results How much can the tax rate on capital be reduced? Given that a lower tax rate on capital has all of these attractive properties the question arises as to how much it can be reduced? It can be reduced enough to reduce wealth-inequality to its baseline (1991) level (τ r = 0.435). However, it cannot be reduced enough to restore utility to its baseline level. Utility increases when τ r is reduced from 0.63 to 0.45. However, it falls if τ r is reduced below this level. Households value public transfers. But, they would prefer for them to be reduced well below their current levels. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 39 / 44

Our results Lowering the labor tax is also an even better policy Public transfers to the poor fall and yet wealth inequality is reduced. Larger improvement in welfare. High earnings inequality Lower τ w τ w 0.32 0.306 ln τ -0.0333-0.1792 σ a 0.255 0.167 ln Y -0.0252 0.00 U -0.2398-0.0639 *All changes are relative to the baseline specification. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 40 / 44

Our results The consumption tax Japan increased the consumption tax rate in 2014 from 5 to 8 percent and there is a plan to increase it again in 2017 to 10 percent. How does this policy affect output, wealth inequality and transfers? In our model an increase in the consumption tax has the following effects. It depresses output. It lowers welfare. However, it reduces wealth-inequality. The consumption tax is a tax on the present value of lifetime income or simply wealth. Increasing this tax reduces the incentive for households to accumulate wealth over their lifetime. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 41 / 44

Concluding Remarks 1 Stagnation, earnings and wealth inequality in Japan 2 Motivation for my research project with Nakajima 3 Our model 4 Our results 5 Concluding Remarks Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 42 / 44

Concluding Remarks The goal of my presentation has been to provide you with a nontechnical overview of our model and our main results. According to our model the recent decision to lower the corporate tax rate in Japan from 37% to 29.74% is good public policy and there is an opportunity to reduce it even further. Reducing the labor tax rate would be even better. The premise in both cases is that social insurance expenditures are reduced at the same time. A complete description of our model and results can be found in our paper: Braun and Nakajima (2016) Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy. Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 43 / 44

Concluding Remarks Thank You! Braun and Nakajima Uninsured Risk, Stagnation and Fiscal Policy 44 / 44